juan@xtrarom.org said:
> a few people prefered to make coretemp(4) a real autoconf(9) driver
> rather than an option, I've heard complaints about options being
> unhelpful for LKMs for example. 

I've been working on cleanups of autoconf structures a lot, but
this one goes a bit too far imho.
Realistically, a cpu(4) driver won't be an LKM. And if envsys(9)
was, there would be easier ways to deal with this: Perhaps make
sysmon_envsys_register(9) et al. hooks which are noops unless
envsys is pulled in.
(I didn't look at details yet, please take this with a grain of salt.)

> IMHO it's more logical to me to attach coretemp(4) at cpu, because there's
> a sensor per cpu.

Most CPUs don't, and there are also cases like Intel HT where CPUs
are just logical entities.
I'd say the autoconf goo would be a waste here; the act of registering
a possibly interesting source of environmental information shuld be
by the device which provides it -- the CPU temperature being registered
by the cpu, not cpu->coretemp.

best regards
Matthias




-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forschungszentrum Juelich GmbH
52425 Juelich

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Juelich
Eingetragen im Handelsregister des Amtsgerichts Dueren Nr. HR B 3498
Vorsitzende des Aufsichtsrats: MinDirig'in Baerbel Brumme-Bothe
Geschaeftsfuehrung: Prof. Dr. Achim Bachem (Vorsitzender), Dr. Ulrich Krafft (stellv. 
Vorsitzender)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------